Abstract

Footnotes (91)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id976476. ; Size: 125K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

This paper, which will be published as a chapter in Foundation Press's forthcoming volume of antitrust stories, reviews United States v. Topco Associates, the Supreme Court's 1972 decision holding that horizontal territorial divisions are per se unlawful under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Most commentators believe the decision was ill-considered - one of the most telling exemplars of Populist era jurisprudence, wrote one commentator; one of the most infamous antitrust cases ever, a case founded on judicial expediency, not economics and one now appropriately viewed as outside the antitrust mainstream, wrote another. We disagree.

Drawing on the transcript of the oral argument, Justice Department documents, the trial record, participant recollections, and the economic background of the supermarket industry, we show how Donald Turner successfully framed the case to solidify the per se rule. We also show that the case was correctly viewed as an attack on a cartel effort by medium-sized supermarket chains to exclude each other from their respective core geographic markets. We also argue that the Court was actually not indifferent to the factual issues the case presented and that at least some members were likely skeptical of Topco's purported justifications. The Court's decision was thus not made on a completely doctrinal basis. Indeed, its below-the-surface consideration of the facts was at least a closer look, even if not the deliberate one today's Supreme Court would require.

Clear rules have their rewards. Donald Turner was right to bring Topco and the Court was right to favor free entry over territorial treaties among competitors. There are complicated areas in antitrust, but the Topco agreement, on closer look, turns out not to be one of them.